customer-support

# Customer Support

Umbrella skill for customer-facing support workflows: triage incoming tickets, draft calibrated responses, convert resolutions into KB articles, package escalations, and research customer context. Each mode loads its own reference files on demand.

**Scope**: Customer-facing support work. Use professional-communication for internal business formats, csuite for strategic decisions, pr-workflow for code PRs.

---

## Mode Detection

Classify the request into exactly one mode. If the request spans modes, choose the primary and note the secondary.

| Mode | Signal Phrases | Core Output |
|------|---------------|-------------|
| **TRIAGE** | New ticket, categorize, prioritize, route, P1-P4, severity, SLA | Structured triage assessment with priority, routing, initial response |
| **RESPOND** | Draft response, reply to customer, follow up, de-escalate, bad news, decline | Customer-facing message with tone calibration and internal notes |
| **KB** | Knowledge base, document this, FAQ, write article, how-to guide, troubleshooting doc | Publish-ready KB article with metadata and search optimization |
| **ESCALATE** | Escalate, engineering attention, SLA breach, churn risk, multiple customers, leadership | Structured escalation brief with impact assessment and repro steps |
| **RESEARCH** | Look up, investigate, what did we tell them, has this been reported, check history | Research brief with source attribution and confidence scoring |

---

## Reference Loading Table

Load only the references required by the detected mode.

| Mode | Reference |
|------|-----------|
| TRIAGE | `references/triage-methodology.md` |
| RESPOND | `references/response-drafting.md` |
| KB | `references/knowledge-base.md` |
| ESCALATE | `references/triage-methodology.md`, `references/response-drafting.md` |
| RESEARCH | `references/knowledge-base.md` |
| Any mode | `references/llm-support-failure-modes.md` (always load -- LLM failure awareness is non-negotiable in support) |

---

## Mode: TRIAGE

**Framework**: PARSE -> CLASSIFY -> ROUTE -> RESPOND

**Phase 1: PARSE** -- Extract the actual problem from the ticket.

- Core problem vs. stated symptom (customers describe symptoms, not root causes)
- Urgency signals: production down, data loss, blocked, multiple users, time-sensitive
- Emotional state: frustrated, confused, matter-of-fact, escalating
- Customer context: account tier, history, previous tickets if available

**Phase 2: CLASSIFY** -- Assign category and priority.

Apply the category taxonomy from `references/triage-methodology.md`:

| Category | When |
|----------|------|
| Bug | "It used to work and now it doesn't" |
| How-to | "How do I make it work?" |
| Feature request | "I want it to work differently" |
| Billing | Payment, subscription, invoice, refund |
| Account | Login, permissions, SSO, access |
| Integration | API, webhook, third-party, sync |
| Security | Data exposure, unauthorized access, compliance |
| Performance | Slow, timeout, degraded, unavailable |

Assign priority P1-P4. When in doubt, err higher -- easier to de-escalate than recover from a missed SLA.

| Priority | Criteria | SLA Response |
|----------|----------|-------------|
| P1 Critical | Production down, data loss, security breach, all users | 1 hour |
| P2 High | Major feature broken, no workaround, many users | 4 hours |
| P3 Medium | Partial break, workaround exists, small impact | 1 business day |
| P4 Low | Cosmetic, feature request, general question | 2 business days |

**Phase 3: ROUTE** -- Determine the right team.

| Route to | When |
|----------|------|
| Tier 1 | How-to, known issues with docs, billing inquiries, password resets |
| Tier 2 | Bugs needing investigation, complex config, integration troubleshooting |
| Engineering | Confirmed bugs needing code fixes, infrastructure, performance degradation |
| Product | Feature requests with demand, design decisions, workflow gaps |
| Security | Data access concerns, vulnerability reports, compliance (bypasses tier progression) |

**Phase 4: RESPOND** -- Draft initial response using the category templates from `references/triage-methodology.md`.

**Gate**: Triage output includes: category, priority with justification, routing recommendation, suggested initial response, internal notes.

---

## Mode: RESPOND

**Framework**: CONTEXT -> CALIBRATE -> DRAFT -> VERIFY

**Phase 1: CONTEXT** -- Understand the full situation before writing a word.

- Who: customer name, account tier, relationship stage (new/established/frustrated)
- What: situation type (question, issue, escalation, bad news, good news, decline)
- Channel: email, ticket, chat (adjusts length and formality)
- Stakeholder level: end user, manager, executive, technical
- History: previous communications, commitments made, tone of thread

**Phase 2: CALIBRATE** -- Select tone from `references/response-drafting.md`.

| Situation | Tone | Key Characteristic |
|-----------|------|--------------------|
| Good news | Celebratory | Forward-looking, enthusiastic |
| Routine update | Professional | Clear, concise, friendly |
| Technical response | Precise | Accurate, patient, structured |
| Delayed delivery | Accountable | Honest, action-oriented |
| Bad news / won't-fix | Candid | Direct, empathetic, alternative-offering |
| Issue / outage | Urgent | Transparent, actionable, reassuring |
| Escalation | Executive | Composed, ownership-taking, plan-presenting |
| Billing | Precise | Factual, resolution-focused |

Adjust by relationship stage:
- **New customer**: More formal, extra context, proactive help
- **Established**: Warm, direct, reference shared history
- **Frustrated**: Extra empathy first, concrete plan, shorter feedback loops

**Phase 3: DRAFT** -- Write the response following the structure:

1. **Acknowledgment** (1-2 sentences) -- show you understand their situation
2. **Core message** (1-3 paragraphs) -- the actual answer, update, or information
3. **Next steps** (1-3 bullets) -- what you will d